Abstract
The once homogenous Icelandic nation is becoming more multicultural and the
question of the Icelandic identity has been raised. The Icelandic language has always been a
very strong unifier and identity marker for the Icelandic community as well as it is one of
the only small languages alive today that has retained features from the ancient sagas of
Icelandic history. However, due to the steady pressures of an ever increasing use of the
English language in the modern global world, a false dichotomy between the two languages
has become created and people may approach any improvements to their English skills as a
risk to the Icelandic language and identity. This essay is an attempt to analyze both sides of
the situation in order to create a sense of equilibrium. This essay will examine the
relationship between English and the Icelandic language, society and culture in order to
validate the claim that it is a false dichotomy. The introduction will address the attitude
necessary for understanding the changes that will be the foundation for the rest of the
discussion. The first chapter will introduce the role of English as it has progressed to an
international phenomenon; the rise of its status in Icelandic society, its varieties as a
standard or international language and how it can coexist with Icelandic in Iceland. Chapter
two will review literature regarding language diversity; how to avoid cultural assimilation,
current actions taken to preserve Icelandic in the face of globalization and prevention of
attrition to the Icelandic language. Chapter three will focus on the other important element,
which is the status of English language proficiency in Iceland today; the context in which
English is being taught and a review of suggestion to improve the proficiency of English
while simultaneously preserving the Icelandic language.
Introduction
The modern world is in a paradigm shift with globalization changing the way
societies identify themselves. We may actually be entering a time as John Lennon imagined;
“Where the world can live as one” (Lennon). According to The Oxford Dictionary of
Economics; globalization is defined as “The process by which the whole world becomes a
single market. This means that goods and services, capital, and labor are traded on a
worldwide basis, and information and the results of research flow readily between
countries.” (“Globalization”) The forces that are driving globalization throughout the world
are strong because they are economic forces and the language used in global communication
is English. As McLachlan notes, “identity cannot exist in a vacuum, because people identify
and communicate with each other for definite purposes, and it would personally seem that
the main purpose is for the economic subsistence of the society.”(McLachlan 1:2) Therefore,
it would appear that no language, society or culture would have a foundation upon which to
exist without an economy to sustain it. In a small country such as Iceland which strongly
identifies itself with the Icelandic language, this creates the question of how does the
Icelandic nation improve its general English proficiency, hence their economic subsistence
in the global world, while simultaneously maintaining the Icelandic identity? The possible
answer is to develop a language policy where the two languages can coexist each for their
own purpose in society – one as a language of identity and the other as a tool for
participation in the global market. This essay will review literature in support of preserving
Icelandic, on the one hand, and improving English proficiency, on the other.
Chapter 1: English in Iceland
1:1 Rise of International English
English is a living language that is evolving around the world and is currently the
language most used for international communication in an expanding global community.
English has its history, and its history has always been rooted in change. These changes have
produced variability to the English language, where there are several different varieties of
the English language used by native speakers as well as growing clusters of varieties and
accents by non-native speakers around the world. In briefly paraphrasing Crystal´s
explanation of the growth of the English language; by the beginning of the 19th Century,
England was the world´s leader in industry and trade, the language of this power was
English, although it has never been an official language in Britain. By the end of that
century the US population grew to nearly 100 million and developed the most lucrative
economies in the world thus becoming a world superpower. Crystal also describes how
American globalization has spread economically in his quote “Economics replaced politics
as the chief driving force. And the language behind the US dollar was English.” (10)
Crystal also explains how the English language is spreading and supported by
powerful developments and technologies which are consistently growing through
multinational organizations. Advertisements and multi-level marketing for expanding
businesses and corporations in the English language have crossed all national boundaries
throughout the world. Mass media and a large demand for English speaking entertainment
has created an indulgence of media networks in English for all ages and academic support in
science and technology has been demanding a higher command of English within
international intellectual environments. (10)
The spread of the English language has been divided into three concentric circles
which are outlined by Kachru. (see fig.1) These circles classify the universal use of the
English language as it is spreading around the world. The English language is represented by
these three circles for different regions of English usage which Kachru titles: the innercircle, the outer circle and the expanding circle. (Kachru 1985) The regions of the innercircle are those areas where English is the primary language such as: The USA, the UK,
Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The outer circle regions involve those areas that had
mostly Non-Native speakers (NNS) of English before English was institutionalized as a
result of long periods of colonization such as; India, Jamaica and the Philippines ext.… The
expanding circle regions are where English is used mostly for international communication
such as; Holland, Italy, Japan, Brazil….Iceland.
Fig. 1. Example of Kachru´s Three Concentric Circles (image by R. White)
1:2 Standard and International English
Standard English (SE) is a term often used to describe the clear and proper use of the
English language. However, Standard English according to Trudgill “is the variety of
English normally used in writing, especially printing: it is the variety associated with the
education system... and it is the variety taught to non-native learners” (117-128). Standard
English may also be referred to as Standard Written English because it can be understood by
all users of English regardless of the vocal differences in pronunciations or dialects. As
specified by Melchers & Shaw “published written texts are generally similar, with almost
identical grammar, spelling that varies in a few well-defined areas, and limited variation in
lexis” (13). Currently; as also stated by Melchers & Shaw, the USA has the greatest number
of NS of English and like Britain; they also do not declare English as an official language
(79-80). They also quote a statement from Trudgill; “Standard English allows any
pronunciation, and prescriptions on pronunciations are not widely enforced nowadays… The
trend over the last 40 years has been to reduce or abandon standardize English
pronunciation” (qtd. in Melchers & Shaw 33).
In regards to English as an International Language in the Expanding Circle, there is
not a set standard, and most likely people that are using, learning or teaching English
internationally are referring to one or more NS (Native Speaker) varieties as a reference.
Jenkins states that the problem with the current standard forms is that “they promote a
unitary and essentially monolithic model based on idealized NS norm, with little scope for
either NNS variation or NNS-led innovation at the international level” (17-18). However,
Jenkins designates different meanings for these terms whereas English as an International
Language (EIL) is the term for the type of English that is used between speakers of different
languages when a Native speaker (NS) is present; and English as a Lingua-Franca (ELF) is
the term used for the English that is spoken only between Non-Native Speakers of English
(NNS) to other Non-Native speakers (3). In regards to the future development of ELF;
Jenkins quotes De Swann (2001) “Europeans might develop their own variety, the way
Indians did, for example and that native speakers of other European languages trained in
English at the language academies of the Union, could become authoritative editors and
judges of style for an emerging European English (qtd. in Jenkins 6). Jenkins also mentions
Widdowson´s approach to the situation that EIL is a distributed language variety with NS
norms whereas ELF is more natural product of English spread which is not dependent on
standard norms. (6) Jenkins then adds Widdowson´s perspective on a separate ELF variety,
whereas he states that it is a process that is underway and as the English language spreads, it
“gets adapted as the virtual language gets actualized in diverse ways, becomes subject to
local constraints and controls.” (qtd. In Jenkins 6)
According to House “International English or English as a Lingua Franca is nothing
more than a useful tool: it is a ‘language for communication’, a medium that is given
substance with different national, regional, local and individual cultural identities its
speakers bring to it.” (House 2001) Ideally, and as supported by Jenkins, separating the
written use of English from the spoken use with the two terms of EIL and ELF could be the
most beneficial for all users of English as it provides an opportunity for ELF to exist on its
own term as an option to those in the expanding/outer areas to use their varieties of English
amongst other NNSs. Nevertheless, EIL exists today, and the NS standards appears to be
mostly for writing, whereas an Icelandic pronunciation of an English word will not be
considered incorrect as it may have been over 40 years ago. Plus EIL is already used for
communication between all English users; NS and NNS alike. In regards to the situation in
Iceland, and the reason Icelanders would want to improve on English proficiency in the first
place may be because the use of the English language by Icelanders will probably be an
international use between NS and other NNS of English.
1:3 English and Icelandic Co-Existing in the Modern World
The English language is spreading as the global language and it can be adopted by
all nations to coexist with other languages, if positive attitudes about bilingualism and
increased awareness of the local language and culture are taught simultaneously. In English
as a Global language; Crystal states;
“Arguments about the need for national or cultural identity are often seen as being
opposed to those about the need for mutual intelligibility. But this is misleading. It is
perfectly possible to develop a situation in which intelligibility and identity happily
co-exist. This situation is the familiar one of bilingualism” (22).
The issue that may prevent harmony between International English and Icelandic is the issue
of language purism. According to Corgan´s summary of a speech given by Hallfríður
Þórarinsdóttir at the Nordic House in Reykjavík 11 September 2001 Corgan quotes “The
purity movement, as opposed to simple preservation, began in the 20th century and has
evocations of racism” (Hallfríður Þórarinsdóttir 1999. qtd. in Corgan). This demonstrates
that language preservation in Iceland is separate from the purist effort. If they were one and
the same that would indicate that language preservation would be a rejection of diversity
hence international growth for Iceland and could subject Iceland to possible international
alienation. Corgan adds the main idea behind her speech was an appeal to Icelanders to
reconsider if language purity really defines being an Icelander (Corgan). However, purist’s
sentiments aside, language preservation of the Icelandic language is more effective in
promoting awareness of not only language, but of all other aspects of Icelandic culture and
heritage as well as supporting diversity in Iceland.
As mentioned in chapter (1:1) Iceland is probably considered in the expanding
circle of English usage; this means that most of the time and in most of the local interactions
by Icelanders, the language used is Icelandic. Furthermore, due to strong preservation
policies by the ILC and an over-all language and cultural awareness, there does not appear
to be an immediate indication that Iceland would ever join the inner-circle region of English.
Additionally, as the English used in Iceland may flow variously between the outer-circle and
the expanding circle, the Icelandic language and culture should still be quite safe. For
example, according to De Swaan; when looking at the outer circle regions where English has
been accepted, there is more of an “accepted disglossia…English has spread, but not as a
mother-tongue, or the language for every day, private, intimate use. English, people say in
the tropics, is the language of the office during working hours, not of the home at leisure
time.” (185)
An illustration of a somewhat current situation in Iceland; there is an on-line
English newspaper that had published a column in 2008, written by Zoe Robert, regarding
the issue of bilingualism in Iceland. The journalist is also reporting the news that a week
prior, one of Iceland´s universities; Bifröst would become the first to offer undergraduate
degrees in business, taught entirely in English. The report claimed that Bifröst´s reason for
doing this is a response to the needs of Icelandic students to improve upon International
English for the global labor market. It is also reported that in 2006, the Chamber of
Commerce had announced a “Future Commission Report- which called for better instruction
in English within the Icelandic educational system, i.e. that parts of the school curriculum be
taught in English by 2015, as well as suggesting that Iceland should aim towards
bilingualism”. (Robert) It appears that there is some awareness of the importance of the two
languages coexisting in Iceland and that may be a sign that the nation is on the right path to
preserving Icelandic as the cultural language while being active participants in the global
world by accepting and improving on English language skills.
CHAPTER 2: Preserving Icelandic
2:1 Language Diversity in Iceland
In Iceland, the Icelandic language is traditionally considered a symbol of national
pride and sovereignty as it is an important identifier and unifier for the Icelandic society and
their status in the world. The Icelandic society; according to Guðmundur Hálfdanarsson, was
considered to be one of the most homogenous societies in the world. However, as he adds,
Iceland and other countries in Europe are becoming increasingly more diverse and
multicultural. (199)
According to Statistics Iceland, the Icelandic population development report claims
that the total population as of January 1, 2011 was 318,452. Also the report states that
immigrants in Iceland are now calculated as 25,693 as of Jan 1 2011 which is approximately
8.1 percent of the total population and people that are born with both parents being
immigrants calculated at 42, 230 or 13 percent of the total population. Therefore, the total
amount of foreign people in Iceland and people with a foreign background is 42,230 or 13.3
percent of the total population. (16) In such a small country, these figures can describe the
potential presence of another language besides Icelandic being a first language of quite a
few residents in Iceland and the increased chance of second or foreign language contact.
Also as Guðmundur Hálfdanarsson mentions, the increase in Icelandic people being born or
raised outside of the country has also proposed a challenge to the traditional identity marker
of being Icelandic. 1 (199) Diversity in Iceland has been on the rise, and this has brought the
issue of Icelandic nationalism and identity to the surface. Guðmundur Hálfdanarsson quotes
the former Icelandic minister of social affairs; Páll Pétursson from a speech he gave in 1994
for the celebration of the fiftieth anniversary of the Icelandic republic. “What is it that makes
1
I, myself am an Icelander who was raised in the U.S. for 35 years. I have always identified my own nationality as an Icelander because of
my heritage and certain cultural traits; such as my name, and my family background. However, I do not speak Icelandic as a first language.
Icelanders a nation? ... It is, above all, the language… the language unites us and makes us a
particular group in international society.” (qtd. in Hálfdanarsson193) According to this
speech, it appears that this form of political discourse reflects how language and national
identity has been generated politically as a trait of nationalism. According to the Collins
English Dictionary the term ‘nationalism’ is defined as a sentiment based on common
cultural characteristics that bind a population and often produces a policy of national
independence or separatism.2 (“Nationalism”)
On the other hand, according to Baker and Jones, “Language is not essential to either
nationalism or political independence.”(331) This implies that nations that realize and
support other aspects of their society´s heritage and culture are most likely not to be
threatened by bilingualism and can accept bilingualism as a new part of their culture, for
their benefit in this new global world. In Guðmundur Hálfdanarsson´s conclusion he states
that. “The essence of nationality is not the homogeneous nature of the national group, but
the will to live together in spite of internal diversity and cultural differences. (200)
Diversity in Iceland and Iceland´s role in the global word is not a question of
nationalism, or nationality. The separation that is inherent in these concepts is the opposite
of what Iceland may be actually attempting to do, as a partner in the wider world. As
expressed by Guðmundur Hálfdanarsson. The quintessence element is an acceptance of all
races, all languages and all nationalities for a common goal of survival in the global world.
The Icelandic Langugae Council does not appear to be taking a “purist” stance concerning
the Icelandic langugae, as it has been active in research and addressing the authorities for
further support (Kvaran.)
2
"nationalism." Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition. HarperCollins Publishers. 02 Sep. 2011.
<Dictionary.comhttp://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nationalism>.
2: 2 Icelandic Language Policy and Protection
We can not change the globalization and the information technology, there is
no one that earnestly suggests that, and we have to accept the fact that
English will be dominating as an international language of communication in
the nearest future. – Guðrún Kvaran
The Icelandic Language Policy was discussed at the European Federation of
National Institutions for Language (EFNIL) conference in Stockholm by Guðrun Kvaran,
director of the Icelandic Language Council. (ILC). According to Kvaran, most people falsely
assume that there is an official authority that handles the preservation of the Icelandic
language, but she explains that that is not the case. Kvaran states “No resolutions are to be
found about an official Icelandic language policy, and the authorities deal less directly with
the preservation of the language than many think.” (Kvaran) However, she does explain that
the purpose of the ILC is to protect the Icelandic language by creating rules when there is
potential danger to the language. Kvaran admits that the Icelandic language faces growing
challenges as a result of “globalization and rapid development of information technology
where the English language is dominating, and often the only language which can be
used.”(Kvaran)
It was also described by Kvaran that in 2002 a committee was formed to manage the
ILC and decide on which domains of language they would focus on over a course of 4 years.
The results of the ILC´s reports were that English was not an immediate threat within the
school system, mass media or in teaching and research at the University. The report added a
concern from the ILC however, which was that a “the negative stand against English in
some firms is changing” (Kvaran) Following this report, the ILC suggested that the best
Icelandic must be taught and in a positive way as a desired language for Icelanders to
express themselves in. Also, an increase of knowledge regarding Icelandic language, history
and culture taught in order to strengthen the Icelandic identity. In regards to teaching
Icelandic, Kvaran suggests also that “one should not use all strength on correcting
morphological errors, instead it is important to practice reading, creative writing, and the
understanding of the language (Kvaran).
The issue of English spreading into Iceland was further detailed during the
conference and issues such as the choice of company names and advertisements were
discussed. Kvaran states that “Large chain stores have discovered a market in Iceland, and
started new branches there.” (Kvaran) However, despite this the ILC maintains that the
Icelandic language has been upheld in advertisement of Icelandic businesses in the daily
newspapers, television and radio because of the regulations that are in place within these
media domains. Kvaran explains that the attempt made by the ILC to encourage companies
to use Icelandic names for their businesses has been to have contact with the advertising
agencies that award annual prizes for the best Icelandic firm name. These prizes are
awarded during a national day dedicated to the Icelandic language. The opinion of the ILC is
that they are emphasizing what is positive about Icelandic, by attempting to dissuade the
belief that English names and foreign titles are better than Icelandic ones. (Kvaran)
The ILC claims that the Icelandic language is safe in other domains such as banking,
politics and law as new Icelandic words are quickly produced from foreign words when
needed. However, in some companies, immigrant groups are actually in the majority, and
most are using another language or English between themselves if they do not share a
common language, and in speaking with Icelanders. In conclusion the main concern over the
spread of English as a dominating language persists in the domain of information
technology. The fear is that people will prefer to use English over Icelandic resulting in
English eventually spreading to other domains. (Kvaran)
2.3 Language Attrition in Iceland
David Crystal, author of Language Death explains many of the factors that pertain to
the potential loss of a language. The first cause for concern would be of cultural
assimilation. In this situation, the culture behind the dominating language becomes preferred
by people and eventually begins to lose its own characteristics. (77) Crystal explains that
there are three stages in cultural assimilation.
The first is immense pressure on the people to speak the dominant language…stage
two is a period of emerging bilingualism, as people become increasingly efficient in
their new language while still retaining competence in their old. Then, often too
quickly, this bilingualism starts to decline, with the old language giving way to the
new. This leads to the third stage, in which the younger generation becomes
increasingly more proficient in the new language, identifying more with it, and
finding their first language less relevant to their new needs. (Crystal 79)
In regards to the situation of Iceland and globalization, the country has already been faced
with the pressure to use English in certain domains; therefore it would be difficult to
influence the factors of the first stage without also risking Iceland´s economic growth
potential. The third stage is potentially a time where it could be considered too late for any
protection efforts to be effective. Crystal states that it is “the second stage -the stage of
emergent bilingualism- where there is a real chance to make progress. (79) In Iceland this
stage can be addressed proactively by the ILC as well as those responsible for the teaching
of English and Icelandic. The importance is in teaching the distinctions between the two
languages and what it identifies to the speakers. Crystal also claims that the term
“domination” must be removed and a healthy attitude about bilingualism be supported in
which both languages coexist as positive aspects to the culture. (81)
The ILC which was previously discussed in chapter 2.1 has been active in preserving
the Icelandic language in most domains while the pressure to use English globally has
grown. According to Kvaran, the ILC realizes that the media plays a very important role in
exposing Icelandic children to English. She comments that it is also important to work with
producers of television programs and mass media, as well as the companies that support
them and in the opinion of this writer, to perhaps increase access to Icelandic entertainment
for children. According to Kvaran;
“Today, there are three reasons why the languages of small nations now have less
changes [sic] than ever to survive. The first one is the Internet and the World Wide
Web. In Iceland most homes have an internet connection, and the younger generation
has got used to the computerized world of information technology” (Kvaran).
Kvaran also adds that schools frequently direct students to the internet for research
and various other tasks, besides the amount of time they spend on the internet during their
free time playing games, or watching internet programs. Information found on the internet is
mostly in English, and as a consequence, the reading of Icelandic decreases. The second is
television, and the availability for cable and satellite television has increased the amount of
time listening and watching programs in another language. Kvaran also states that “the
programmes that are usually chosen to look at and listen to are in English” (Kvaran). The
third reason is the inexpensive cost and easy access to English on CD-ROM. Kvaran
explains that many English language computer games are popular by children of all ages,
and the “younger generation use these three factors every day. They sit in front of their
computers looking for information, at school as well as at home, play games on CD-ROM,
and use the rest of their spare time looking at television or playing English or American pop
music on CDs” (Kvaran).
Kvaran also explains a situation that was once a concern regarding Icelandic artists.
That temporarily, there was a negative attitude about using the Icelandic language in music,
However Icelandic musicians who have gotten known abroad with songs in English texts
such as Björk and Sigur-Rós, have not only sang in English, but have often sang in Icelandic
which may have caused other Icelandic artists to change their view and start to see Icelandic
lyrics in a more positive light. In a much larger and positive perspective concerning the
impact that popular music and other art forms have on individual cultures; the ability to
witness both languages maintaining their worth in the music industry may be an indicator of
a healthy bilingualism developing in Iceland. Nonetheless the main concerns of the ILC, lies
mostly in Information Technology; whereas explained above appears to be out of balance,
with the over-all accessibility to English being more frequent than the accessibility to
Icelandic. According to Kvaran, “Concerning technology it will be one of the Council´s
main tasks to urge the politicians to support researches and projects with the language
technology” (Kvaran). Over-all a state of healthy bilingualism could be better maintained by
achieving an equal state of balance between the exposure and accessibility of both
languages.
Chapter 3: English Language Proficiency
3:1 English Aptitude in Iceland
According to a research project, by Birna Arnbjörnsdóttir and Hafdís
Ingvarsdóttir conducted at The University of Iceland, the perspective of English proficiency
by Icelandic students was analyzed. It was concluded that “at least a third of university
students in Iceland have some difficulty in comprehending English academic texts.” (13)
The students that participated in the study felt that they were sufficient in English and that
they were prepared for the English required in the University. They did however;
acknowledge that working in English caused a significant increase to their workload as they
had to invest time in translation and/or other methods of studying. For example, according to
the study, “The vast majority say that they use dictionaries and one third of the respondents
write summaries of the English content in Icelandic.”(13) Furthermore, It appears that
according to the research, Icelandic students have a perception of their English aptitude
which is often over estimated and may be a cause of the high dropout rate. (Birna
Arnbjörnsdóttir 2007, 53).
Also, according to an article written by Berman, he describes the issue of English at
the University; “Perhaps we have been lulled into behaving as if English is virtually a
second language in Iceland, by doing things like assigning academic English reading in
University courses, based on the prevalence of English in the environment and on
Icelander´s obvious ability to chat in English.” (15) This misperception of English
proficiency is not only in Iceland, as Berman introduces information from other
Scandinavian countries. For example, Phillipson from Denmark states that “Danes suffer
from the delusion inherent in the common myth that Danes are good at English” (qtd. in
Berman 15) Also in Norway, a discussion regarding research by Hellekjær asserts that
“while most Norwegians may seem orally proficient in everyday situations… this does not
mean that they have developed the cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP)
English needed for higher education or for occupational purposes. (Hellekjær, 2009, p.198,
quoted in Berman 15) Research shows that the requirement for English proficiency in higher
education appears not to match the actual proficiency by Icelandic students. Berman also
raises another question of whether this is an “English reading problem here, or a reading
problem” (17) This seems to demonstrate that not only are English proficiency skills for
academic literacy lower than students may perceive, it is also evident that there may be
issues regarding literacy skills in Icelandic as well.3 The other part of Berman´s discussion is
that English is more than a foreign language in Iceland as well as in other countries and the
requirements for higher English proficiency is “crucial in university studies.” (17)
Additionally, Berman had previously noted that English held “a status more closely
associated with – though not matching- a second language, in terms of its commercial,
professional and social value” (Berman, 1995, p. 20; quoted in Berman p 15)
There appears to be an interesting dynamic occurring regarding English aptitude in
Iceland as well as other countries in Europe. Icelandic children are actually higher in
proficiency at the beginning of formal learning of English, yet as adults they are less apt to
be as proficient at the level required in university academia. This inconsistency indicates
that there is reason to research further into the issue and attempt to create a more consistent
plan of teaching English according to the actual needs of the learners in Iceland.
3
Even though there has been research conducted regarding Icelandic reading skills, and Berman makes a good argument towards further
research and possible revisions to the curricula, this essay will not discuss L1 proficiency at this time.
3:2 English as a Second and English as a Foreign Language
The determining factor of whether a language is a second or foreign language is the
context in which it is taught and learned. According to Birna Arnbjörnsdóttir; it is important
to distinguish between these contexts to determine the amount of attention placed on the
language and its usefulness in the society in which it is being learned. (Arnbjörnsdóttir)
There are also different policies and teaching methods between these two whereas if an
Icelandic speaker was learning a language that he/she would not be using in their everyday
lives, such as learning French in Iceland then the procedures for teaching French would be
as a basic foreign language. However, if that same Icelandic speaker was learning a
language that they are using in their lives, such as English, than it would be necessary to
learn that language according to its usefulness in the Icelandic society.
The amount of exposure to English in Iceland as well as in many European countries
indicates that English is not a foreign language as much as it is already a second language.
The issue of English in Iceland is that many Icelandic people will feel confident in the usage
of English until they are met with the challenges of academic English in the Universities or
in employment on the global market (Birna Arnbjörnsdóttir). This confidence compared to
the reality of the situation does not mean that the Icelandic people have insufficient
proficiency in English. It means that the current context of English teaching does not meet
the proficiency of the Icelandic people at the start of formal English learning. In other
words, Icelandic people are more prepared to learn English as a second language versus
learning English as a foreign language because of their previous exposure to the language
through the global multi-media and connections to the global world market and other
English speakers. The context of learning English as a second language is already
demonstrated as useful to the Icelandic society in terms of its role on the global market and
International economic relations. Also, learning English as a second language allows a
choice of teaching methods that learning English as a foreign language does not allow.
English is already the non-official second language of Iceland, and Icelandic
University students have been exposed to English for many years prior to formal education.
A recent field study by Samúel Lefever demonstrated that many young Icelandic children by
the age of 4 years old believe that they are good in English. (Lefever) Icelandic children are
actually more equipped to learn English as a second language when they reach the age of
official school learning versus learning it as a foreign language because they have already
been passively exposed to the language in their everyday lives through the global
multimedia. Birna Arnbjörnsdóttir also states: “Students who begin formal English
instruction in the 4th grade have already exceeded the curriculum goals for English in that
grade…. Also, students feel that the English instruction that they did receive in school had
actually little to do with their actual use of English.” (Birna Arnbjörnsdóttir) To learn
English as a second language may not mean that they need to learn it earlier, but adjustments
to the curriculum and working with students’ actual English level proficiency at the start of
formal instruction should create a more improved level of proficiency in English by the time
the student reaches University. Another consideration is location of the students that are
learning English. In the capital region of Reykjavík and other large towns in the South, the
exposure to English may be higher than in smaller farming communities or where tourism in
not as popular. Therefore adjustments made to the curriculum may need further testing and
research on current English language proficiency in different areas of Iceland in order to
find out the right curriculum to begin formal teaching relative to students’ abilities. The
opinion of this writer is that perhaps by maintaining a distinction between the two terms;
second or foreign language teaching, it can help create methods in testing and teaching that
are relative to the actual exposure in all Icelandic communities.
3:3 Improving English in Iceland
Suggestions made on improving proficiency in English as an International language
in a country such as Iceland, where the language will most likely be used by the higher
levels of academia, and business could be generalized as just making modifications to the
current status of English as a Foreign Language curriculum. However, the scope of this
essay cannot actually propose methodologies for teaching English. This chapter will be a
short literature review of three issues; teaching, language planning and disglossia.
According to Melchers and Shaw they present the question of “what kind of English
should be taught by schools in the expanding circle” (191). They claim that this question is
actually divisible into three parts: “what exposure should we give learners, what production
model should we choose and what production target should we aim for?” (191). The current
exposure to English in Iceland should be considered, as it would describe the actual contact
that is experienced. For example, most Icelandic people are exposed to American English
through multi-media, but may also have formal exposure to British English. The production
model selected by teachers can be one of these two or another variety, or since it is an
International English, perhaps a combination of varieties is the most effective. The target
that is being aimed for is international English proficiency and as paraphrased by Melchers
and Shaw regarding variety “International English learning has the goal of teaching learners
to be able to communicate across cultures and language boundaries…. It also provides the
learner of International English the maximum scope of proficiency” (192).
Another direction in improving English proficiency in Iceland is to look at bilingual
language planning. A plan designed for the improvement of International English as well as
a plan to strengthen the instruction of the Icelandic language. The planning involved in both
aspects would be actualizing international English as a second language of Iceland. The
main factor in this type of planning is called internationalization whereas Wardhaugh states
that “Internationalization is the adoption of a non-indigenous language of wider
communication either as an official language or for such purposes as education or trade”
(380). In paraphrasing Wardhaugh, he also explains that making a language official does
not mean that it must be recognized constitutionally and that two or more languages can
actually share official status. (380) The planning of teaching International English as a
second language in Iceland could also help the ILC better protect Icelandic from
marginalization by being active in the decision making and planning process.
An additional important factor, however, may be in the concepts of disglossia and
code-switching between international English, and Icelandic. EIL is not just learned as a
second language, but as a separate functional code in Icelandic society as English will be
considered a functional language for international communication relative to academic,
business, science and other domains where code-switching between these domains is
perceived as a communication strategy. Wardhaugh uses an example of a multilingual
country, Singapore, where there are four official languages, which are used in different
functions and still the speaker´s native language is yet another variety of Chinese. He
explains that the Chinese children in Singapore are most likely able to code-switch between
the languages fluently and he states “The linguistic situation in Singapore offers those who
live there a wide choice among languages, with the actual choice made on a particular
occasion” (99). As defined by Wardhaugh, ”A disglossic situation exists in a society when
it has two distinct codes which show clear functional separation; that is, one code is
employed in one set of circumstances and the other in an entirely different set” (85). It also
helps to create a stronger disglossic situation in Iceland whereas both languages can be
fluent and actually complementary of each other.
Conclusion
The advancement of Iceland as a nation may be to accept the reality of the situation
in which the country is now faced. The pressure from globalization to accept the English
language that drives it is equally as important as preserving the cultural identity of the
Icelandic language. The issue of a smaller nation accepting a language for wider usage can
be alarming and controversial to those who tend to define their identity on language more
than other aspects of their culture. This feeling of fear is created from the false dichotomy
that exists based upon aspects of language contact and cultural assimilations. However, the
kind of English which is spreading is more of an international function English than it is a
language that replaces the identity of other nations. For example, even in native speaking
countries, the English language is so various, that one variety does not dominate another
variety, and even though many varieties will use the same standards for mutual written
intelligibly it does not mean any standard is better. In order to promote equality between
NNSs, the fear of a Standard English norm may be a crucial element in the future
development of ELF standard cores for communication between nonnative English speakers.
Nevertheless, as Crystal suggests it is important that the term “dominating” be removed as it
does not have to be a dichotomy in modern global societies to have two languages where
one language serves the identity factor and the other serves an international purpose. (81)
The development of all-inclusive language policies and teaching plans which promotes
disglossia and provides prestige to both languages will imply to the Icelander as well as the
global community that Iceland does support the many other aspects to its culture and does
not fear losing its identity. After all, just because Icelanders can speak, read and write
English does not make them an American, Englander or Australian. They are still and will
always be Icelanders; this new English will however make also make Icelanders
international.
Works Cited
Baker, Colin and Sylvia Prys Jones. “Bilingualism and Nationalism“. Encyclopedia of
Bilingualism and Bilingual Education. Googlebooks.is. 26 August 2011. Web
http://books.google.com/books/about/Encyclopedia_of_bilingualism_and_bilingu.ht
ml?id=YgtSqB9oqDIC
Berman, Róbert. “Icelandic University Students’ English Reading Skills”.Málfríður.
Málfíður.ismennt.is. pdf. 2 Sept. 2011. Web
http://malfridur.ismennt.is/vor2010/pdf/malfridur-26-01-15-18_rb.pdf
Birna Arnbjörnsdóttir and Hafdís Ingvarsdóttir. “Coping with English at University;
Students’ Beliefs”. Menntavika 2010. 31. December 2010.Web. 02. Sept. 2011. Web
http://netla.khi.is/menntakvika2010/008.pdf
Corgan, Michael. “Language as Identity: Icelandic Confronts Globalization.” Centre for
Small States Studies Conference. Reykjavík 16-18 September 2004. Web 3 Sept
2011.
Crystal David. English as a Global Language. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press.2002.
Print
---. Language Death. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Print
---. “What is Standard English?” DC Articles. David Crystal.com. pdf. 8 August 2011. Web
http://www.davidcrystal.com/DC_articles/English52.pdf
De Swaan, Abram. Words of the World. Polity Press. 2001. Print
"Globalization." The Oxford Dictionary of Economics. Ed. John Black. Oxford University
Press, 2002. eNotes.com. 2006. 30 Aug, 2011. http://www.enotes.com/econencyclopedia/
globalization
Guðmundur Hálfdanarson. “Language, Ethnicity and Nationalism: the Case of Iceland.”
Linguistic and Ethnic Plurality, Past and Present. PDF. Háskola Íslands.
http://www.stm.unipi.it/Clioh/tabs/libri/7/13-Halfdanarson_193-204.pdf
Guðrun Kvaran. “Icelandic Language Policy in Past, Present and Future”. Icelandic
Language Council. European Federation of National Institutions for Language.
Stockholm Conference.http://www.efnil.org/conferences/archives/stockholm2003/speeches/kvaran-english
House, Julianna. “A Stateless Language that Europe must Embrace”. Languages and
HigherEducation.GuardianUK.19April2001.Web
Jenkins, Jennifer. English as a Lingua Franca: Attitude and Identity. Oxford University
Press. 2007. Print
Kachru, B. B. “Standards, Codification and Sociolinguistic Realism: The English Language
in the Outer Circle”. In English in the World: Teaching and Learning the Language
and Literature. 1985. Eds. R. Quirk and H.G. Widdowson, Cambridge; Cambridge
University Press for the British Council. Print
Lennon, John. “Imagine” The 500 Greatest Songs of all time. Rollingstone.com. August 9
2011. Web http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/the-500-greatest-songs-of-alltime-20110407/john-lennon-imagine-19691231
Mc Lachlan, David. “Opinions on the Social and Cultural Impact of English as an
International Language. Hadley publication. Nuis.ac.jp
http://www.nuis.ac.jp/~hadley/publication/jeffrey/Jeffrey-EIL.htm
Melchers, Gunnel and Shaw. “World Englishes”, the English Language Series. 2003. Print
"Nationalism." Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition.
HarperCollins Publishers. 24 Aug. 2011. Web Dictionary.com
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nationalism>.
Robert, Zoe. “Bilingualism: Why Not?” Icelandreview_online. Daily life. 02 March 2008.
WEB. 3 Sept 2011
http://www.icelandreview.com/icelandreview/daily_life/?cat_id=16539&ew_0_a_id
=301792
Samúel Lefever. “English Skills of Young Learners in Iceland…I started talking English
when I was 4 years old. It just bang…just fall into me.” Ráðstefnurit Netlu –
Menntakvika 2010 Menntavísindasvið Háskóla Íslands 31 Desember 2010
http://skemman.is/stream/get/1946/7811/20404/1/021.pdf
Statistics Iceland “Statistical Series Population”. Population development 2010. 2011/03/29
Vol. 96 No. 18. www.hagstofa.is/hagtidindi www.statice.is/series. 2 Sept 2011. Web
Trudgill, Peter. “Standard English: what it isn´t” eds Tony Bex and Richard J. Watts.
Standard English: the widening debate. London: Routledge, 1999, 117-128. 3 Sept
2011. Web http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/SEtrudgill.htm
Wardhaugh, Ronald. “An Introduction to Sociolinguistics” sixth edition. Wiley-Blackwell.
Print
White, Ron. Figure 1. Picture of the three concentric circles of Kachru, B. B. Web
http://host.uniroma3.it/docenti/boylan/text/white01.htm
.